In the case of Guidet v. Brooklyn, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Guidet, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Brooklyn, to build a bridge across the East River. The contract provided that Brooklyn would pay Guidet a certain sum of money for the construction of the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to all of its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract, and that there was no evidence that either party was under any duress or undue influence when they entered into the agreement. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court found that there was no evidence that either party had made any false statements or had otherwise misled the other party in any way. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Guidet and Brooklyn was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Guidet v. Brooklyn, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that a contract between two parties should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by what one party may have intended or expected from it. Furthermore, he noted that if the court were to interpret contracts based on expectations of either party then there would be no end to litigation over such matters as each side could claim different intentions for their agreement. Justice Field also pointed out that while some ambiguity might exist in certain cases, this particular case did not present any such issues; instead, it simply required an interpretation of the contract's plain language which clearly indicated what had been agreed upon by both sides at the time they entered into it. In conclusion, Justice Field argued strongly against allowing courts to interpret contracts based on subjective interpretations of either party’s intent and urged his colleagues to adhere strictly to established principles when interpreting contractual agreements between private individuals or entities.